2002 (7) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against imposition of penalty under Adjudication Order, missing records delaying appeal hearing, condonation of delay in filing appeal, reconstruction of original appeal, challenge against demand of duty in fresh appeal, amendment of appeal grounds in 2002, justification for belated challenge, absence of show cause notice before penalty imposition, payment of duty amount, imposition of penalty without deliberate intention to evade payment.

Issue 1: Missing Records and Delay in Hearing
The appeal was filed challenging the penalty imposed under Adjudication Order, but the records were missing, causing delays in the hearing despite repeated representations from the assessee. Subsequently, a fresh appeal was filed in 2002 to condone the delay of over five years. The Tribunal accepted a copy of the original appeal from 1996 as a reconstructed appeal, allowing the case to proceed based on the reconstructed appeal.

Issue 2: Challenge Against Demand of Duty
The original appeal from 1996 solely contested the penalty imposition of Rs. 15,000, not challenging the demand of duty. However, the fresh appeal in 2002 included grounds challenging the duty demand, which were not part of the original appeal. The Tribunal rejected treating the 2002 appeal as an amendment to the original one, emphasizing that the relief sought in the original appeal was limited to the penalty imposition, and no belated challenge against the duty demand could be entertained without valid reasons for the delay.

Issue 3: Absence of Show Cause Notice and Penalty Imposition
The main contention in the original appeal was the absence of a show cause notice before the penalty imposition. However, it was found that the appellant had voluntarily paid the duty amount without requesting a show cause notice or personal hearing. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, deemed the penalty unjustified as there was no deliberate intention to evade duty payment. Consequently, the penalty imposition was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with the appellant entitled to consequential reliefs.

This judgment addresses the challenges related to missing records delaying the appeal hearing, the reconstruction of the original appeal, the limitation of grounds in the original appeal versus the fresh appeal filed later, the rejection of belated challenges without valid reasons, the absence of a show cause notice before penalty imposition, and the unjustified penalty imposition due to the lack of deliberate intention to evade duty payment.